Then there's the Cornwall Alliance. That's that wacky cult who thinks that their god will protect them from all natural disasters and they have sworn to deny climate science. Today Anthony's hosted one of their mob, Paul Driessen (archived here), complaining that deniers are being scorned and vilified by, well, Greenpeace from what I gather. Not sure when or where. But Pat Michaels (of Pat'n Chip fame, who's not a member of the Cornwall cult AFAIK but often cited by them) and David Legates (who is a member of the Cornwall cult and coauthors papers with the potty peer, Christopher Monckton) are feeling a mite depressed and must've asked Paul to stand up for their right to reject science. You might remember David. He's the one who told a US Senate committee that CO2 is animal food!

Survivalists and a religious cult. What better company could Anthony Watts ask for?

"Paul Driessen (archived here), complaining that deniers are being scorned and vilified by, well, Greenpeace from what I gather. Not sure when or where."

That's what you got from the article in question? Wow, yet another example, if one was needed, of how totally you (willfully?) misunderstand so much of what is written over at WUWT - or other so-called denier sites for that matter.

Surely your reading skills are sufficiently developed to see that the article was much more than a whine about Greenpeas being nasty to scientists who don't travel with the herd.

Yeah, right, and we should all do this because it's actually a well-considered rational piece painstakingly examining the issues, rather than a semi-hysterical, "scare quote" ridden, lunar-Right political rant, right?

If you're reduced to defending this sort of stuff, you're really on the way out...

What I got from Driessen's article is that he lies. There is a possibility he is not aware of his lies, but then it is mostly due to ideological clouding.

The lies of Driessen? Simple1. None of Michaels' e-mails were released to Greenpeace, because Greenpeace did not want to pay for any investigation(Greenpeace has previously obtained an old Michaels CV through a FOIA request - the one that *did* list funding from a fossi fuel company) and has previously requested further information that Michaels did not want to release and never was released.

2. UvA made an agreement with ATI to release e-mails (it was a bit slow in responding, but so was ATI in its payments), and it wasn't until Mann intervened and the UvA lawyers noticed that the plaintiffs and the lawyers involved in deciding which e-mails would be exempt were the same people that a previous agreement was stopped through court.

So the article was about perpetuating lies, and also about not noticing the blatant hypocrisy that Legates fought release of any material using the same arguments as Mann, but when Mann did so, only he is the one trying to hide stuff.

Where's the outrage of the pseudoskeptics that Michaels does not release all his e-mails himself? Where's the outrage that Legates fought the release of his e-mails and other documents? There is none, because of course only pseudoskeptics have nothing to hide and therefore do not need to show their 'private' communications. Am I right, hazym?

No response from you? What was that then, just an empty swipe at HotWhopper with nothing behind it?

All that was claimed by the article was that ...complaining that deniers are being scorned and vilified... was in the article. Which it clearly was as my example showed. It did not claim (as you appear to suggest it does) that that was the main theme of the article. Your reading skills may be OK but your comprehension is lacking or perhaps your ability to only interpret what you want to hear is overdeveloped.

It reads to me as if the article is trying to ascribe blame for who "started" the polarisation of the climate debate and that as "Greenpeace started attacking scientists" in 2009 they are a big part of the picture. I am a bit puzzled by this as evidence for the start of a climate misinformation campaign (by the coal industry) goes back to at least 1991 that I know of.

So hazym. How have I wilfully misunderstood the article? What is your analysis? What have you got to add?

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)